- (1.) The second appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law: a) Whether the recording in column 13 in the record of rights has to tally with the contents of column 23 thereof and, if not, what is the implication of the variation. b) Whether the lower appellate court could have found a recording in the record of rights to have been erroneous and issued a direction for its correction without any party applying in such regard before the appropriate revenue authorities.
(2.) The first respondent is not represented despite service. The first respondent was the plaintiff who had instituted a suit for declaration and injunction, claiming that the entitlement of the parties pertaining to the joint property was appropriately recorded in column 13 of the record of rights but the extent of the possession of the parties in respect of the joint property was erroneously recorded in column 23 thereof. The trial court held that column 13 pertained to ownership and column 23 of the record of rights pertained to possession at the time that the recording was made and there may not be any anomaly if there is a variation between the extent of a joint property attributed to the co-sharers in the two columns. The trial court, however, dismissed the suit on the ground that all the co-sharers had not been impleaded in the suit.
(3.) The appellate court proceeded to issue directions for the correction of the record of rights as the appellate court perceived some of the entries in the record of rights to be erroneous. The provisions of, inter alia, the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 prohibit such correction, though a declaratory decree may be passed and an injunction in pursuance of such declaration may be passed in personam against any party.;